Now, I'm not big on executions. But, what about the whole "not discriminate based on...(there's a long list here)"? Isn't that what the Supreme Court is doing here, discriminating against the mentally retarded by making them immune to certain laws? It's not that I don't understand the reasoning behind it, but the hypocrity of the whole thing just boggles the mind. Just something to think on.

I have yet to read the decision, but this is what makes sense to me. Our criminal justice system is largely based on the concept of "intent". (I am not crazy about the idea that it is, for various reasons, but, it is.) Crimes are defined primarily by the state of mind of the perpetrator, and to a lesser extent, by the results of their actions. The difference between murder and manslaughter, for instance, is that in murder, you mean to go out and kill another person, and in manslaughter, you don't intend to kill anyone but someone dies anyway due to your indifference to human life.

I think it's a logical argument (I'm not sure one I'd necessarily agree with, but certainly plausible at least) to say if you're mentally retarded, you are incapable of forming the required intent for crimes like murder, rape, and other things we give the death penalty for, and thus cannot be given the death penalty.

gonna build a giant drill and bore straight into hell releasing ancient demons from their sleep-forever spell so they can walk upon the earth and get recituated and run the diet pill pyramid that MC Pee Pants has created

A retared person can kill someone, get off because they lack the mental capasity [it is no fault of their own] to understand what is right and wrong and not understand that killing is wrong, and can get off.

now, what if they kill again, or beat up some poor child because the child said the word "Business" and the attacker hates that word because it is "funny".

Should the Fed require that those deemed "Retarded" (having an IQ of 65 or less) be forced to live in mental institutions to protect the pubic because they can not live under the norms of society?

just a thought...

"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." -Lewis Black"Yeah, fuck you E.T. you ungrateful dick." -BigDaddyLoco 5/20/2"MAY PRE HOUSE THE SEAMY SIDE VOLITATION!!!" Warning from a "Flying Goku" Dragon Ball Z toy"I'm her sugar momma, which is ok, because I'm her sister." Connie French, and the funniest thing one of my customers has ever said to me"Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass. If the horses appear skittish, the motorist must take his car apart, piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes." Pennsylvania State law

gonna build a giant drill and bore straight into hell releasing ancient demons from their sleep-forever spell so they can walk upon the earth and get recituated and run the diet pill pyramid that MC Pee Pants has created

if they can't understand why, too bad...i don't see why it's "Cruel" to execute a "retarted" person and not a "Smart" person... (because they don't know better?)

Some autistic (sp?) people have 200+ IQ scores, but just like Rain man, they don't know what is right or wrong...

they are "smart"...

so...just because they can not understand the law doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to them

"But sir, i didn't understand we couldn't shread Enron's papers!"

"OH, ok then, let them go, they didn't understand."

like that would happen

"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." -Lewis Black"Yeah, fuck you E.T. you ungrateful dick." -BigDaddyLoco 5/20/2"MAY PRE HOUSE THE SEAMY SIDE VOLITATION!!!" Warning from a "Flying Goku" Dragon Ball Z toy"I'm her sugar momma, which is ok, because I'm her sister." Connie French, and the funniest thing one of my customers has ever said to me"Any motorist who sights a team of horses coming toward him must pull well off the road, cover his car with a blanket or canvas that blends with the countryside, and let the horses pass. If the horses appear skittish, the motorist must take his car apart, piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes." Pennsylvania State law

My opinion is that I don't care why someone purposely and viciously tortured and killed someone. And that is what most death penalty cases involve. I hate the insanity plea and this also bothers me. The criminal who this case is based off of had been convicted of something like 13 felonies. He practiced the crime. Kidnapped someone and stole money. Then killed him. If the criminal wasn't mentally disabled would anyone but death row opponents dispute his guilt or that he would deserve the death penalty?Same with the insanity plea. I don't doubt that many of them lived horrible lives with being sexually and physically abused by their parents. If those people then killed their parents then they could reasonably say the are insane. But to kill some random woman or kids because of what their dad did? I can even accept someone killing someone all of a sudden. But people like Bundy who kill over years then try to plea insanity.

I just have 13 words for you. How much wood would a woodchuch chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

How about this argument then. Mentally retarded individuals are less capable of being able to defend themselves in a court of law. How can you present a reasonable alibi or decide whether or not to compromise for a lesser verdict when you have a difficult time tying your shoes?

What does the death penalty accomplish besides revenge? Put the criminal in a mental institution (or jail)and remove them from society. If you check statistics (which if anyone calls me on, I'll drag my lazy ass around the web and find), life imprisonment or institutionalization is much, much cheaper.

"Words to memorize. Words hypnotize. Words make my mouth exercise. Words all fail the magic prize. Nothing I can say when I'm in your thighs."

Originally posted by astrobstrdHow about this argument then. Mentally retarded individuals are less capable of being able to defend themselves in a court of law. How can you present a reasonable alibi or decide whether or not to compromise for a lesser verdict when you have a difficult time tying your shoes?

What does the death penalty accomplish besides revenge? Put the criminal in a mental institution (or jail)and remove them from society. If you check statistics (which if anyone calls me on, I'll drag my lazy ass around the web and find), life imprisonment or institutionalization is much, much cheaper.

As far as being less able to defend themselves that should be the lawyers job. How many hopped up junkies aren't qualified to defend themselves? Plus the felon who this case is based on commited 13 felonies in less than 4 year! So the judge and juries felt sorry for him because of his disability and now someone is dead. Is that fair to the victim's family? You might be right about it being unfair for death panalty cases but as of right now mentally disabled people are the ones who get the advantage.I agree with you about the death penalty though. It is ineffective and too expensive. The U.S. legal system needs to be overhauled. True life terms. 3 strikes your out for separate violent felonies. Better juvenile punishments. Right now kids are thrown in jail and learn to be better criminals. That is stupid. Thailand definitely has some good ideas there.

I just have 13 words for you. How much wood would a woodchuch chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Junkies have the ability to detox themselves, and then assuming they are not truly insane and have an IQ over 65 or so, they can work with a lawyer. The mentally retarded will not be able to tell a lawyer what is best for them...you can't "detox" low IQ. If a lawyer wants to fight a case all the way, he doesn't have a mentally capable client telling him/her, "Look, I'd rather plea bargain and get life."

The ADA was not intended to make everything EXACTLY the same for everyone. It was intended to try to level out the playing field a little bit and to make a semi-normal life livable for those with disabilities. If this is a violation of the ADA, so is when Disneyworld lets Make-A-Wish kids and the handicapped to the front of ride lines. That is favoritism of the disabled (albeit on a MUCH smaller scale), and who here will rail against that as a violation of the ADA?

"Words to memorize. Words hypnotize. Words make my mouth exercise. Words all fail the magic prize. Nothing I can say when I'm in your thighs."

Originally posted by rikidozanA retared person can kill someone, get off because they lack the mental capasity [it is no fault of their own] to understand what is right and wrong and not understand that killing is wrong, and can get off.

now, what if they kill again, or beat up some poor child because the child said the word "Business" and the attacker hates that word because it is "funny".

Should the Fed require that those deemed "Retarded" (having an IQ of 65 or less) be forced to live in mental institutions to protect the pubic because they can not live under the norms of society?

just a thought...

Sorry, there's no logic there.

I don't get why, whenever the subject of the death penalty comes up, people who are in favor it immediately decide to pretend the only options in a murder case are "lethal injection" and "let them go free"

If a mentally retarded person was found guilty of murder, they would either get life in prison or life in a criminal mental hospital (which, despite many aggrivating conservative moanings to the contrary, is pretty much the same thing.)

I can't see how anyone can justify killing someone with the brainpower of a child. (Of course, there's only three countries on Earth where they're allowed to execute children - Libya, Iran and the United States (that includes Afghanistan and Iraq and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and all the other grand human rights centers of the world.)

"It's a sad day when mocking one's opponent via midget becomes an acceptable form of entertainment."--Lance Storm

I don't get why, whenever the subject of the death penalty comes up, people who are in favor it immediately decide to pretend the only options in a murder case are "lethal injection" and "let them go free"

If a mentally retarded person was found guilty of murder, they would either get life in prison or life in a criminal mental hospital (which, despite many aggrivating conservative moanings to the contrary, is pretty much the same thing.)

I can't see how anyone can justify killing someone with the brainpower of a child. (Of course, there's only three countries on Earth where they're allowed to execute children - Libya, Iran and the United States (that includes Afghanistan and Iraq and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and all the other grand human rights centers of the world.)

Read the case that the SC decision is based on. The defendant had practiced the crime and had 13 assault charges. Now why was a person with 13 assault charges in less than 6 years not in jail? This was not a case of he got mad and killed someone. It was a planned robbery. Now his IQ doesn't matter to the dead person or his family does it? As long as the U.S. has the death penalty things like mental disability and insanity should play no part. If you kill someone committing a felony, it is premeditated, or is so vicious then any State should be able to ask for the death penalty it they choose. I think the SC was overstepping it's power. The SC can't force states to execute. That being said the death penalty should be removed. It accomplishes nothing positive. Sure one total scum is dead but at what cost? It sends a mixed message and is very cost ineffective.

I just have 13 words for you. How much wood would a woodchuch chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

The first is that the loose interpretation of "mental retardation" is a person whose I.Q. is under 70. If the Supreme Court wants to tell us that we can't charge a person with an I.Q. of under 70 with Capital Murder, that's fine: they can be put away in a mental institution.

However, I have a serious problem with the idea that a "retarded" person can be sent to prison for life, but be excluded from the death penalty. If we can assume that this person did not have the proper mental capacity to premeditate an act of murder, he simply can't be charged with murder in the first or second degree, as the statutes simply don't permit it.

This decision seems to be taking a step towards outright banning the death penalty, due to its internal legal inconsistency. If a person is deemed capable of premeditation, the death penalty must be considered as the statute requires. Otherwise, it's my belief that this decision actually prohibits the prosecution of any "retarded" persons on a charge of anything higher than manslaughter in the first degree.